What religion are you?

[phlogistician]

I'm an agnostic because I think both theism and atheism are irrational.

...

How can you say that something can't possibly exist just because you can't see it, hear it, touch it, etc.?

Saying something doesn't exist is not what atheism is about. It's merely not believing. A 'theist' is a person who believes in god. An atheist is a person who doesn't. There is no denial, no statement that god does not exist. I am an atheist.

So what is agnosticism? Saying you don't know, or that it ca'nt be known, whether god exists? So, firstly, not knowing your own mind, or secondly, laying down a certainty about the solubility of the god question. How preposterous either way!

To some degree, everyone is an atheist, unless they believe in every god, from Apollo to Zeus, with Loki, Ganesh, and all the others in between.

 

[Chalaco]

Saying something doesn't exist is not what atheism is about. It's merely not believing. A 'theist' is a person who believes in god. An atheist is a person who doesn't. There is no denial, no statement that god does not exist. I am an atheist.

So what is agnosticism? Saying you don't know, or that it ca'nt be known, whether god exists? So, firstly, not knowing your own mind, or secondly, laying down a certainty about the solubility of the god question. How preposterous either way!

To some degree, everyone is an atheist, unless they believe in every god, from Apollo to Zeus, with Loki, Ganesh, and all the others in between.

link for definitions on the words 'atheist' and 'agnosticism'

 

[Hevene]

Katazia
The difference between religion and spirituality is:
Religion requires you to take there words as the truth, or else.
Spirituality allows you to decide your own truth.
Religion is an institution that rids your freedom. Spirituality brings you freedom.

 

[phlogistician]

link for definitions on the words 'atheist' and 'agnosticism'

That was more of a discussion of the meaning, rather than a definition. Anyway, it pretty much said what I said. I do however, dislike the term 'strong atheist', to mean someone who denies the existance of god, as much as I dislike the watering down of the term 'agnostic'. Both of which are mentioned in that article.

I'm strict on this. Atheism is the only useful term. 'weak' or 'strong' confuses the issue. I am an atheist, pure and simple.

 

[Katazia]

Hevene,

The difference between religion and spirituality is:
Religion requires you to take there words as the truth, or else.
Spirituality allows you to decide your own truth.

My point is that the net result is identical – you end up believing something imaginary as if it were true.

Religion is an institution that rids your freedom. Spirituality brings you freedom.

The only freedom seems to be whether you create your own fairy tale or believe someone else’s.

Either approach is tragically sad.

Kat

 

[Chalaco]

That was more of a discussion of the meaning, rather than a definition. Anyway, it pretty much said what I said. I do however, dislike the term 'strong atheist', to mean someone who denies the existance of god, as much as I dislike the watering down of the term 'agnostic'. Both of which are mentioned in that article.

I'm strict on this. Atheism is the only useful term. 'weak' or 'strong' confuses the issue. I am an atheist, pure and simple.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

 

[wesmorris]

So what is agnosticism?

I think it is basically this: "question everything" (including your own perception).

It regards the nature of knowledge, not a stance on deities.

 

[phlogistician]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

So what does that mean?

 

[phlogistician]

I think it is basically this: "question everything" (including your own perception).

It regards the nature of knowledge, not a stance on deities.

That's the more recent interpretation of 'agnostic', yes, which has been diluted to mean the same as skeptic. That was not it's original meaning, which is that an agnostic believes the answer to be unknowable. A bit of an unproveable statement in itself.

But skepticism implies a lack of belief, and therefore, skeptics, are atheists, not agnostics. Agnostics are just a bunch of fence sitting apologetics who don't want to offend anyone.

 

[Chalaco]

That was more of a discussion of the meaning, rather than a definition. Anyway, it pretty much said what I said. I do however, dislike the term 'strong atheist', to mean someone who denies the existance of god, as much as I dislike the watering down of the term 'agnostic'. Both of which are mentioned in that article.

I'm strict on this. Atheism is the only useful term. 'weak' or 'strong' confuses the issue. I am an atheist, pure and simple.

You pseudo intellectuals really bemuse me. A discussion of the meaning, rather than the definition??? :bugeye: What the hell is a definition if it's not a meaning? Really, what did you do in school?

dictionary.com's DEFINITION of the word, DEFINITION!

def·i·ni·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (df-nshn)
n.

A statement conveying fundamental character.
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning

not good enough? How about one more...


definition

n 1: a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol


get the point?

So what is agnosticism? Saying you don't know, or that it ca'nt be known, whether god exists? So, firstly, not knowing your own mind, or secondly, laying down a certainty about the solubility of the god question. How preposterous either way!

How astute

You know, one would expect someone to do a little research on terms they speak of before posting, not to come across curt, but maybe you would benefit from doing so in the future... just maybe.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with not knowing your own mind. One could argue that theism is to do with not knowing your own mind. After all, you adhere to something which has yet to be proven to you and is irrational, or so I believe it to be. And how can agnosticism lay "down a certainty about the solubility of the God question?" Let me quote http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html on this one...

the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue

If, by chance, some objective proof and empirical evidence for theism were to show itself to these agnostics, I'm sure they would recant.

I'm not through with you yet...

That was more of a discussion of the meaning, rather than a definition. Anyway, it pretty much said what I said.

ummm..... no it didn't! :bugeye:

I do however, dislike the term 'strong atheist', to mean someone who denies the existance of god, as much as I dislike the watering down of the term 'agnostic'. Both of which are mentioned in that article.

And I'm sure the article feels bad about you not liking the definitions, but you don't have to like them, it's semantics!

I'm strict on this. Atheism is the only useful term. 'weak' or 'strong' confuses the issue. I am an atheist, pure and simple.

If you really don't heed the pertinence of clarifying such terms which have been spun in a web of calumny by a pre-dominantly theist world, you, sap, are the one confused.

 

[Hevene]

Katazia
Most ideas within science are first imaginations. They became true to you, but eventually spirituality will reach that place.
Creating my own "fairy tales" is freedom realised. Instead of restricting yourself to logic only, I am able to move further, including both logic and faith, allowing myself to create on a larger scale. To me that is freedom - to be able to create everything I can imagine.
This to me is not sad at all, it's only your perception.

 

[phlogistician]

You pseudo intellectuals really bemuse me.

All you've done is cherry pick parts of definitions to suit your view.

On the point of discussion vs definition. A discussion if an exploration of a subject, seeing it from more than one angle. There will be variance in the interpretation of a word if you discuss it's meaning, because that discussion will incorporate it's usage, even if that usage isn't strictly accurate.

For instance, a discussion of the word 'decimate' would probably take it's modern usage into consideration. From dictionary.com;

dec·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-mt)
tr.v. dec·i·mat·ed, dec·i·mat·ing, dec·i·mates
1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group).

First is in this list is it's usage, not it's meaning.

We have to wait until point 3 to get the correct definition;

3. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of.

So, when we look at terms such a 'agnostic' and 'atheist' and are using them in a proper religious context, the exact definitions, not incorrect usages are more important.

According to your own source at infidels.org;

"The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley ..." who " ...had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

A conviction, based on what evidence? Agnosticism therefore, is another faith based proposition. So the term has been weakened by misuse. That's no excuse to not use the term correctly in debate, especially when there are more precise terms available, such as atheist, and skeptic. To be picky about it, agnostics are a subset of atheists. As it is impossible to both believe and not believe at the same time, and believing requires conviction that an agnostic doesn't have, an agnostic, is by definition, and atheist.

Agnostics (Huxley included) seem to think that being an agnostic is higher intellectual position, when in actual fact, it's a logically flawed proposition. Claiming to be an agnostic, is fence sitting, not philosophy.

 

[one_raven]

Agnostics are just a bunch of fence sitting apologetics who don't want to offend anyone.

That is an absurdly narrow view of the subject.

Strictly speaking, it is the position that the answer to the question of whether "God" (by popular definition of the diety) exists is not answerable, not that no one has answered it sufficiently yet.

Agnostic - A (without) gnosis (knowledge).

Saying they are sitting on the fence implies that they have not "decided" which way to go yet, when, in fact, they HAVE decided that man is incapable of answering the question.

Obviously the term is used quite broadly and many people who have not decided refer to themselves as agnostic (which is fair enough, because they are without knowledge of the answer), but if this is about the "meaning" or "definition" of the term, then your analogy is clearly bullshit.

Theists have decided that God does exist.
Atheists have decided that God does not exist.
Agnostics have decided that it is not possible to know.

Of course there are many gray areas in between and within these definitions, and arguing what word to apply to gray areas that do not fall within the definitions of terms is really kind of pointless, isn't it?

If you fall into a gray area, and do not want to be misunderstood, then it is your responsibility to further explain yourself and your position rather than grasping at a specific term.

Personally, I refer to those that are undecided (such as myself) as "agnostic by default".
I, as I said, am an "agnostic by default", not quite convinced yet, but leaning further towards atheism each day.
I may, someday, be an atheist or a confirmed agnostic, but, in my opinion, "sitting on the fence" is the only truly open-minded way to face the subject of religion and theistic position.

To take the theist position I would have to "know" that "God" exists.
To take the atheist position I would have to "know" that "God" does not exist.
I don't "know" and claiming otherwise would be arrogant and presumptuous (to say the least) regardless of which way I went.

If I had to align myself with a specific religion, then I would have to say that Buddhist philosophy is closest to what I strive for in my life (though I don't agree with everything Buddha said).

 

[phlogistician]

That is an absurdly narrow view of the subject.

Agnostic - A (without) gnosis (knowledge).

Saying they are sitting on the fence implies that they have not "decided" which way to go yet, when, in fact, they HAVE decided that man is incapable of answering the question.

So agnostics have decided, without a single shred of evidence, that the question is insoluable. What arrogance they have! Not that I care, because I am an atheist, so don't believe. Some people however, have a firm belief in the existance of god. This puts agnostics, and theists at loggerheads, rather, doesn't it? Atheists are off on a tangent.

Theists have decided that God does exist.
Atheists have decided that God does not exist.
Agnostics have decided that it is not possible to know.

FALLACY!

Theists believe in, or have faith in god.

Atheists do not make a definite statement about the existance of god. They just don't believe in him.

Agnostics make wild claims without any shred of evidence for their position.

Personally, I refer to those that are undecided (such as myself) as "agnostic by default".
I, as I said, am an "agnostic by default", not quite convinced yet, but leaning further towards atheism each day.

You either believe in god or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist.

I may, someday, be an atheist or a confirmed agnostic, but, in my opinion, "sitting on the fence" is the only truly open-minded way to face the subject of religion and theistic position.

Being an agnostic is not open minded. You've decided that people cannot know! How can you transistion from this certain position, to any other?

To take the theist position I would have to "know" that "God" exists.
To take the atheist position I would have to "know" that "God" does not exist.
I don't "know" and claiming otherwise would be arrogant and presumptuous (to say the least) regardless of which way I went.

It's not about 'knowing' that's the agnostic fallacy. It's about faith and believing.

 

[phlogistician]

I refuse to retort because of the obstinacy in your rebuttal.

So far, you've used such ad-homs as 'pseudo intellectual' 'birdbrain' 'junior' and 'depths of stupidity', but you think I come across as obstinate? You don't think that you sound a little condescending and arrogant? I'll carry on the debate despite your arrogance. I won't use it as an excuse to duck a point as you have.

2. The self-refutation argument


If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

3. The argument from concept-formation


If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Well done, you've expanded on my original point that agnosticism isn't a valid position. We actually agree, if you can see past the end of your own nose.

 

[Chalaco]

So far, you've used such ad-homs as 'pseudo intellectual' 'birdbrain' 'junior' and 'depths of stupidity', but you think I come across as obstinate? You don't think that you sound a little condescending and arrogant? I'll carry on the debate despite your arrogance. I won't use it as an excuse to duck a point as you have.

You're missing the point of pontification.

Well done, you've expanded on my original point that agnosticism isn't a valid position. We actually agree, if you can see past the end of your own nose.

You can't be serious (sadly, I think you are being serious). I'll retort, regardless.

Maybe the problem is that I thought we were on the same page, little tyke. For you se,e if you would have read the article, there's two main types of agnostics, one of which can be, and is, an atheist, the latter is the 'empirical agnostic'. So the agnostic differs from the skeptic (which you laid claim to being, earlier). Simply in that, the EMPIRICAL agnostic is one who would be swayed if shown empirical evidence, objective proof. Get the point?


The empirical agnostic is not a skeptic. NO ONE IS A SKEPTIC, for the following reasons, I know I quoted him before, but some people obviously did not heed...

1. The "lazy argument"


Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

2. The self-refutation argument


If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

3. The argument from concept-formation


If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

ok, re read that...



now, read this (from the agnostic/atheism article)...

"Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism"."

" He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism"

"In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue"

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism

many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".]".

When you refer to the agnostic being that of the likes of a skeptic, you are referring to the STRICT agnostic. I am an empirical agnostic, so your little esoteric connection is lost, as a matter of fact, it was never there, you misunderstood me. You thought me to be that of the strict agnosticism kind. I am not.

 

[Chalaco]

the agnostics who say the question of a god cannot be known and will never be known (strict agnosticism) are veritably stupid. They're skeptics, or so they would have us believe. On this, we have come to an accord. On ONLY this, we will come to an accord, though.

 

[Chalaco]

and what I meant by you being obstinated was that you are stubbornly set in yoru ways, your beliefs. Try looking up a word before jumping the gun (try to make the sure the gun's loaded next time too).

I think you even said so, I quote you as saying

I'm strict on this. Atheism is the only useful term

 

[Chalaco]

I won't use it as an excuse to duck a point as you have

I'll start ducking points when you start shooting them. Seriously, these putative points you say I've ducked, where do they come from :bugeye:

I never ducked the point saying that "it was discussion on the meaning, not the definition". Then showed you why arguing semantics did not merit your point (as if you had one to begin with, but let's just assume you did). I showed you the dictionary's definition of a, get ready for this, definition. It said the MEANING. So, the connection between the meaning and the definition isn't exactly esoteric, now is it? No, it's not.

Then, I guess that seemed to abate your stance because you then wrote a paragraph quoting some random word, using the definition of it to pull off a miraculous feat -- You managed to use a whole paragraph to say nothing, nothing at all. :bugeye:

Now, aside from the digression in that post, you misquoted the article, no where in the article does it say

According to your own source at infidels.org;

"The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley ..." who " ...had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

I've read the article x amount of times, not once did I see this come up... strange, isn't it. :bugeye: "pretty strong conviction that the problem" was not found, and what's with your gluttonous use of the term, "pretty", [in its colloquial sense]? You used it when replying to my links, saying it, "pretty much said what I said", when, in fact, it had said a WHOLE LOT MORE (on strong and weak atheism, strict and empirical agnosticism, to name a few).

You make two points that we can come to concordance on, though.

So agnostics have decided, without a single shred of evidence, that the question is insoluable. What arrogance they have!

-- but that only goes for the strict agnostics

Agnostics (Huxley included) seem to think that being an agnostic is higher intellectual position

-- They give us empirical agnostics a bad name

I read through your other posts again, there are void of any points, in my eye. I'll start ducking when you start firing, old timer. Even then, I'd return fire rather than duck.

All you do is deny anything brought to you that does not merit your initial putative point, that you're an atheist, "pure and simple". You don't heed the practical and overt benefits that come from posting that link (that I got from a thread in this site, mind you) and clearing up two words that have received more slander than Joan Rivers and Ayn Rand put together (especially the word atheist; and I know, who would'a thought to see Joan Rives and Ayn rand in the same sentence). In short, you're just out for yourself in this congregation of a thread. You contribute your own subjective opinions, don't heed others, stay stubborn and say things such as "discussion of the meaning, not the definition" (which I debunked). What's your purpose in this thread, you're telling everyone what's what and you don't what WHAT IS.

 

[Greco]

The way Greco sees it.


A theist is a person who believes in a superior intelligence, a supreme being.

An atheist is a person who has determined that those beliefs are false and there's no supreme being.

An agnostic is a skeptic that believes that all the facts aren't in to make a determination whether or not a supreme being exists.

To add some fuel to the discussion I think atheists are jumping to conclusions. Historicaly man has altered the way he looks at the universe because some men were brilliant enough to make different observations. Besides the big bang bubble there's a knowledge bubble expanding as well. As the bubble front expands so does our understanding of nature and of the possibility of phenomena that are puny minds haven't even considered.

For an atheist to write off a supreme being is supreme folly indeed.